click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20121118
20121118
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
an important role. you know the obama vision was one where they thought better suited the country. and there is no question on social issues. whether it is women's health care, immigration, gay rights. there are a set of issues particularly for younger voters so, people vote very, very carefully. the economy was a dominant issue. i think that is why ultimately some people chose the president to continue the journey we are on. now quickly in terms of democracy, you know we don't know this for sure, but we could be seeing very different elections. that of that in 2010, 14, maybe 18 will be quite a bit different. the comments i made two years ago were predicated on what we thought would happen in a presidential year. the latino turnout was surging. president winning more of the latino votes but even winning the cuban votes. you saw young votes exceeding the turnout from four years ago surprising most analysts. you saw african american turnout. you saw the excitement of the first african american president was four years ago. you saw a real determination there to support the president
is enough jobs. we are focused on a grand bargain, which is another way of saying austerity. president obama got it right when he said that companies are awash with cash. what they are missing is enough customers out there to prompt demand and justify them spending more on plants and equipment. businesses need customers. they do not create jobs. austerity is the opposite of income creating sales. it reduces income. tax increases reduce income. spending cuts reduce income. both, i would argue, are the wrong medicine for the economy today. we have seen the effects of austerity. we do not want to follow, these countries over the cliff and gratuitously -- we do not want to follow these countries over the cliff gratuitously. [applause] thank you. >> i want to talk to brad. take the next. >> i have a couple of things to say. our $2 trillion figure is not a recommendation. it is actually a response to the fact that everyone thinks that $4 trillion is what is needed to achieve -- a debt stabilization gold, stabilizing debt to gdp, to keep that from rising faster than the economy, which ultimately is
on the minds of liberals in washington right now. i should say there is one fear -- that president barack obama will give republicans more than they need to accomplish the elusive grand bargain over taxing and spending. your comment. guest: i liked the idea that i only have one thing in my head. that seems like a beautiful states. the president i saw seemed quite clear on the fact that he says he is not going to -- he is going to follow through on what he said in the campaign, which is to make sure the tax cuts for the rich do not get extended. second is that jobs need to be part of the deal. austerity has not worked. cuts have not worked in europe and they will not work here. what he said in public is that he is not going to balance the budget on the backs of the middle-class and the poor. we need to take him at his word. at the same time, we know there are folks in washington who are looking at this as a chance to make cuts to programs they have been gunning for for decades. they see this as a chance to make cuts to social security and medicare. those things were debated in this election. the
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3